| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <87r0oap0s4.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 07:10:19 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Shijie Huang <shijie@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com>
Cc: Huang Shijie <shijie@...amperecomputing.com>,
oliver.upton@...ux.dev, james.morse@....com,
suzuki.poulose@....com, yuzenghui@...wei.com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...erecomputing.com,
zwang@...erecomputing.com, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM/arm64: reconfigurate the event filters for guest context
On Fri, 11 Aug 2023 02:46:49 +0100,
Shijie Huang <shijie@...eremail.onmicrosoft.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> 在 2023/8/10 23:27, Marc Zyngier 写道:
> > Huang,
> >
> > Please make sure you add everyone who commented on v1 (I've Cc'd Mark
> > so that he can shime need as needed).
> thanks.
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 08:29:06 +0100,
> > Huang Shijie <shijie@...amperecomputing.com> wrote:
> >> 1.) Background.
> >> 1.1) In arm64, start a guest with Qemu which is running as a VMM of KVM,
> >> and bind the guest to core 33 and run program "a" in guest.
> >> The code of "a" shows below:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >> #include <stdio.h>
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> unsigned long i = 0;
> >>
> >> for (;;) {
> >> i++;
> >> }
> >>
> >> printf("i:%ld\n", i);
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> 1.2) Use the following perf command in host:
> >> #perf stat -e cycles:G,cycles:H -C 33 -I 1000 sleep 1
> >> # time counts unit events
> >> 1.000817400 3,299,471,572 cycles:G
> >> 1.000817400 3,240,586 cycles:H
> >>
> >> This result is correct, my cpu's frequency is 3.3G.
> >>
> >> 1.3) Use the following perf command in host:
> >> #perf stat -e cycles:G,cycles:H -C 33 -d -d -I 1000 sleep 1
> >> time counts unit events
> >> 1.000831480 153,634,097 cycles:G (70.03%)
> >> 1.000831480 3,147,940,599 cycles:H (70.03%)
> >> 1.000831480 1,143,598,527 L1-dcache-loads (70.03%)
> >> 1.000831480 9,986 L1-dcache-load-misses # 0.00% of all L1-dcache accesses (70.03%)
> >> 1.000831480 <not supported> LLC-loads
> >> 1.000831480 <not supported> LLC-load-misses
> >> 1.000831480 580,887,696 L1-icache-loads (70.03%)
> >> 1.000831480 77,855 L1-icache-load-misses # 0.01% of all L1-icache accesses (70.03%)
> >> 1.000831480 6,112,224,612 dTLB-loads (70.03%)
> >> 1.000831480 16,222 dTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all dTLB cache accesses (69.94%)
> >> 1.000831480 590,015,996 iTLB-loads (59.95%)
> >> 1.000831480 505 iTLB-load-misses # 0.00% of all iTLB cache accesses (59.95%)
> >>
> >> This result is wrong. The "cycle:G" should be nearly 3.3G.
> >>
> >> 2.) Root cause.
> >> There is only 7 counters in my arm64 platform:
> >> (one cycle counter) + (6 normal counters)
> >>
> >> In 1.3 above, we will use 10 event counters.
> >> Since we only have 7 counters, the perf core will trigger
> >> multiplexing in hrtimer:
> >> perf_mux_hrtimer_restart() --> perf_rotate_context().
> >>
> >> If the hrtimer occurs when the host is running, it's fine.
> >> If the hrtimer occurs when the guest is running,
> >> the perf_rotate_context() will program the PMU with filters for
> >> host context. The KVM does not have a chance to restore
> >> PMU registers with kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest().
> >> The PMU does not work correctly, so we got wrong result.
> >>
> >> 3.) About this patch.
> >> Make a KVM_REQ_RELOAD_PMU request before reentering the
> >> guest. The request will call kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest()
> >> to reconfigurate the filters for guest context.
> >>
> >> 4.) Test result of this patch:
> >> #perf stat -e cycles:G,cycles:H -C 33 -d -d -I 1000 sleep 1
> >> time counts unit events
> >> 1.001006400 3,298,348,656 cycles:G (70.03%)
> >> 1.001006400 3,144,532 cycles:H (70.03%)
> >> 1.001006400 941,149 L1-dcache-loads (70.03%)
> >> 1.001006400 17,937 L1-dcache-load-misses # 1.91% of all L1-dcache accesses (70.03%)
> >> 1.001006400 <not supported> LLC-loads
> >> 1.001006400 <not supported> LLC-load-misses
> >> 1.001006400 1,101,889 L1-icache-loads (70.03%)
> >> 1.001006400 121,638 L1-icache-load-misses # 11.04% of all L1-icache accesses (70.03%)
> >> 1.001006400 1,031,228 dTLB-loads (70.03%)
> >> 1.001006400 26,952 dTLB-load-misses # 2.61% of all dTLB cache accesses (69.93%)
> >> 1.001006400 1,030,678 iTLB-loads (59.94%)
> >> 1.001006400 338 iTLB-load-misses # 0.03% of all iTLB cache accesses (59.94%)
> >>
> >> The result is correct. The "cycle:G" is nearly 3.3G now.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Huang Shijie <shijie@...amperecomputing.com>
> >> ---
> >> v1 --> v2:
> >> Do not change perf/core code, only change the ARM64 kvm code.
> >> v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2023/8/8/1465
> >>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> >> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> >> index c2c14059f6a8..475a2f0e0e40 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
> >> @@ -919,8 +919,17 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >> if (!ret)
> >> ret = 1;
> >> - if (ret > 0)
> >> + if (ret > 0) {
> >> + /*
> >> + * The perf_rotate_context() may rotate the events and
> >> + * reprogram PMU with filters for host context.
> >> + * So make a request before reentering the guest to
> >> + * reconfigurate the event filters for guest context.
> >> + */
> >> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_RELOAD_PMU, vcpu);
> >> +
> >> ret = check_vcpu_requests(vcpu);
> >> + }
> > This looks extremely heavy handed. You're performing the reload on
> > *every* entry, and I don't think this is right (exit-heavy workloads
> > will suffer from it)
> >
> > Furthermore, you're also reloading the virtual state of the PMU
> > (recreating guest events and other things), all of which looks pretty
> > pointless, as all we're interested in is what is being counted on the
> > *host*.
>
> okay. What about to add a _new_ request, such as KVM_REQ_RESTROE_PMU_GUEST?
>
>
> > Instead, we can restrict the reload of the host state (and only that)
> > to situations where:
> >
> > - we're running on a VHE system
> >
> > - we have a host PMUv3 (not everybody does), as that's the only way we
> > can profile a guest
>
> okay. No problem.
>
>
> >
> > and ideally we would have a way to detect that a rotation happened
> > (which may requires some help from the low-level PMU code).
>
> I will check it, hope we can find a better way.
I came up with the following patch, completely untested. Let me know
how that fares for you.
Thanks,
M.
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 93c541111dea..fb875c5c0347 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -49,6 +49,7 @@
#define KVM_REQ_RELOAD_GICv4 KVM_ARCH_REQ(4)
#define KVM_REQ_RELOAD_PMU KVM_ARCH_REQ(5)
#define KVM_REQ_SUSPEND KVM_ARCH_REQ(6)
+#define KVM_REQ_RELOAD_GUEST_PMU_EVENTS KVM_ARCH_REQ(7)
#define KVM_DIRTY_LOG_MANUAL_CAPS (KVM_DIRTY_LOG_MANUAL_PROTECT_ENABLE | \
KVM_DIRTY_LOG_INITIALLY_SET)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
index 8b51570a76f8..b40db24f1f0b 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/arm.c
@@ -804,6 +804,9 @@ static int check_vcpu_requests(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
kvm_pmu_handle_pmcr(vcpu,
__vcpu_sys_reg(vcpu, PMCR_EL0));
+ if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_RELOAD_GUEST_PMU_EVENTS, vcpu))
+ kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest(vcpu);
+
if (kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_SUSPEND, vcpu))
return kvm_vcpu_suspend(vcpu);
diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
index 08b3a1bf0ef6..7012de417092 100644
--- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
+++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmuv3.c
@@ -772,6 +772,9 @@ static void armv8pmu_start(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
/* Enable all counters */
armv8pmu_pmcr_write(armv8pmu_pmcr_read() | ARMV8_PMU_PMCR_E);
+
+ if (in_interrupt())
+ kvm_resync_guest_context();
}
static void armv8pmu_stop(struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu)
diff --git a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
index 847da6fc2713..d66f7216b5a9 100644
--- a/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
+++ b/include/kvm/arm_pmu.h
@@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ int kvm_arm_pmu_v3_enable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
struct kvm_pmu_events *kvm_get_pmu_events(void);
void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
void kvm_vcpu_pmu_restore_host(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+void kvm_resync_guest_context(void);
#define kvm_vcpu_has_pmu(vcpu) \
(test_bit(KVM_ARM_VCPU_PMU_V3, (vcpu)->arch.features))
@@ -171,6 +172,7 @@ static inline u8 kvm_arm_pmu_get_pmuver_limit(void)
{
return 0;
}
+static inline void kvm_resync_guest_context(void) {}
#endif
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists